Politics in 2008 Part 3: Britain and UK
I started to wonder if it would be 2009 before I finished this 3-part series, due to having had to go back to work after Christmas – but also because the GB/ UK part of the picture is hardest to grasp. I’ve tried to find a theme in each of the three posts which identifies where politics has been heading over the past year in these islands and trends for 2008, and I do think something interesting is happening in the UK around what the state is for. It’s most obvious in relation to devolution, but there are also questions about the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world, about the state and the people, and about the state and political parties.
Devolution was in the news in 2007 due to elections in Scotland and Wales, as well as the restoration of the NI Assembly. The Scottish Parliament now has a minority nationalist government, the Welsh Assembly a coalition between nationalists and Labour, and of course in NI we have no choice but to have a coalition. All these are the product of proportional representation. The first past the post mentality of UK politics is beginning to change, as politicians have to think more collaboratively about which other parties they could work with and the mechanics of preference voting.
Some policy differences are beginning to emerge across the UK, most particularly in health and social care but also in education and housing – see Our Kingdom to keep up. The reaction of the English to greater policy diversity has been interesting. Having turned down the chance of elected regional government in the North East, they have now started to whinge anew about the West Lothian question, including campaigning for an English Parliament. The logical end to this debate is fully fledged federalism, unless the Scots get their independence first. The issue will continue to be high profile in 2008.
The UK’s relationship with the rest of the world is in flux, too. I think that’s also about changes in the UK’s identity and influence, with economic power shifting East towards India and China, political power still focused in the USA, and the EU suffering from its own identity crisis. The ambivalent attitude towards the EU could become another distinguishing feature between England and the rest of the UK where we can see the sense of an economic alliance of smaller nations and the social benefits of EU membership. The relationship with the USA also needs to change, depending on the outcome of the Presidential election.
The function of the state at home needs some thought as well. Not being a liberal, I’m in favour of some aspects of social control, such as action of some kind against anti-social behaviour as it makes people’s lives a misery. The smoking ban is great, too. But we are becoming a more authoritarian state in more disturbing areas such as immigration and welfare benefits, culminating of course in identity cards. I do think people need to start worrying about this, as well as the corroding fear of difference (foreigners, Muslims) that is put about by the popular press.
Finally, the relationship between the state and political parties should be straightforward. Politicians are elected to govern and the activities of their parties are regulated by the state to avoid corruption of the process. Last year wasn’t great for that dynamic, and this year is starting out just as badly. Financial issues are overshadowing what should be the main story in 2007 and predictions for 2008: Gordon Brown as new Prime Minister. Having been a fan, I’m extremely disappointed – and surprised – that after a good start he’s not showing the leadership I expected and that he’s re-introducing nuclear power. I don’t see that 2008 will be a good year for the British Labour Party.
8 comments:
An interesting series of pieces...
Just thinking about Brown, could any of us have foreseen how inept he has been. I'm genuinely surprised... not on the political level where he always struck me as largely as centrist as Blair in his inclinations, but in terms simply of process. Remarkable...
Yes, I'm gutted at Brown's performance. I did think he was more left-wing than Blair, but like you it's the managerial incompetence that has been so unexpected. If it wasn't for the lack of talent in the rest of the PLP, Labour would be tearing itself apart by now with a new set of careerist leadership factions.
PS I just love Irish Left Archive!
Don't be so hard on him, breathe deeply you two. It's been years of watching Blair fly everywhere involved with massive media campaigns and then Gordon returns to finish off domestic reform on various fronts and it all becomes a bit prosaic.
The nucleur power argument is one that depends on really attacks to energy supply making life near impossible to function. It has its part to play in the diversification of energy and although its got problems try having cuts to electricity for prolonged periods.
Ok Gordon Brown doesn't have the pizazz of Blair but so far who would you prefer. Blair cocked up and the only reason he was allowed a comfy fall without the knives out was because he always flirted with the notion of leaving, stifling drives by the opposition to build up enough energy to knock him out.
Just because Blair turned out to be rubbish doesn't mean we can't have high standards for his successor, DC! And the timescale for new nuclear power stations also gives the UK time to get serious about alternatives, including energy conservation. Ironically, it's the private sector that might save us by deciding it's not viable to build them...
The government's attitude to the EU is one of the things that annoys me most. I have no doubt that Labour is pro-European, but why don't they just declare it more often? By shying away from debate and not stating their position they are giving unlimited ammunition to the only group in British politics that does want to talk about Europe - the UKIP/Tory right faction. Credit to the Lib Dems at least for being openly pro-EU. I'd probably vote for them at the moment if I lived in GB were it not for their foolish position on Iraq. I also think Northern Ireland is currently misrepresented in the European Parliament with three Eurosceptic MEPs, but that'll be a debate for next spring.
The death of smoking in bars has been extremely sad. I know I'm probably in the minority in this one, but wasn't smoking up there with drinking in the list of things 'the pub' was actually made for? I gave up - - reluctantly - a couple of years back due to a combination of a price rises and a half-hearted concern for my health (I'm probably one of the few people struggling to take up smoking). Saying that you're a smoker these days is likely to be greeted with the same reception as proclaiming yourself a communist in 1950s Texas. Don't like bars as much these days. Lots of families going out for meals. Uuurgh! I agree with you though that we are generally becoming a more authoritarian state. I've always preferred my socialism with a libertarian kick.
But my main hope for 2008 is that Gordon Brown stops trying to please everyone. No more tea parties for old Tories, no more spiel about a government 'of all the talents'. If he is a conviction politician then it's about time he developed some convictions. I doubt we'll see anything new, as the messy compromise over Northern Rock suggests. Personally, I'd be quite happy to have Blair back at this stage. A bad year ahead for Labour. The fact that a mediocre leader like Cameron looks good at the moment says it all. No wonder he applauded when Tony Blair left the Commons.
JG - There's something about the EU that paralyses British political parties - why? The argument is quite straightforward in terms of the benefits and surely the opposition can't be all xenophobia, er, can it? (see your comment in my previous post!) But Blair back? Surely we're not that desperate yet? The big problem in British politics is a lack of ideology, and Blair won't fix that.
And as for the decline of the pub after the smoking ban, I agree they should be no place for children but I love coming home without stinking of tobacco. And I'm an ex-smoker too.
God, almighty. Firstly Blair was not rubbish, and secondly Brown has never had any real leadership ability (certainly not in a transformational sense which is what people seem to what). If he had, he'd have had the balls to challenge Blair for the leadership in the first place!
Anon - Blair presided over economic growth and increased prosperity for a lot of people (or perhaps that was Gordon Brown?), redistributed some cash to the poorest (oh sorry, Gordon again)and worked hard to get agreement on the governance of Northern Ireland - definitely not Gordon. So I was hasty in proclaiming him to be completely useless. But on the other hand he is responsible for the circumstances of taking the UK into Iraq, by which I mean the way decisions were made as much as the decision itself, he did the public sector no favours by carrying on the inappropriate use of private finance (possibly Gordon slightly to blame here) and he wrecked the British Labour Party. So why Gordon Brown didn't challenge Tony Blair to the leadership? Simple. You need a wife, and ideally kids, to be leader of the LP.
Post a Comment